Simmons v Post Office

Procedural time limits apply equally to litigants in person and represented parties. An extension will be exceptional and requires a satisfactory explanation for the delay, supported where appropriate by credible evidence showing that the alleged irregularity materially affected the earlier decision. The applicant must also act with reasonable speed after discovering the relevant material. Ill-health and lack of representation do not, without more, justify a gross delay. Where no good excuse or other compelling reason is shown, permission to appeal should be refused.

Mr Simmons sought permission to appeal from the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Lindsay J, who had dismissed his appeal against the refusal of the EAT Registrar to extend time for appealing an employment tribunal decision. The tribunal had dismissed his complaint of victimisation under section 4 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The notice of appeal was filed 539 days out of time.

Mr Simmons alleged misconduct, including the removal or falsification of documents, and relied on ill-health. He also sought disclosure of a tape and production of documents. The central questions were whether the alleged irregularities justified an extension of time and whether it would be unjust to apply the time limit to a litigant in person.

1. The application for permission to appeal was refused. The ancillary application for production of a tape and documents therefore also fell away.

2. The court found no material error in Lindsay J’s careful decision. The allegations of misconduct at the employment tribunal hearing remained unsubstantiated. The material placed before the court did not show that the tribunal’s decision was impugned or that the alleged documents would probably have affected the result.

3. An extension of time after discovery of forged documents or improper dealing with relevant documents might constitute an exceptional reason, but the applicant would need credible evidence of the irregularity, evidence that it had significantly affected the result, and proof that he had acted with reasonable speed after discovering the new material.

4. The importance of strict compliance with time limits had repeatedly been stressed in United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar [1995] ICR 65 and Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Co Ltd [2000] IRLR 111. The procedural rules applied equally to litigants in person. Although tribunals and courts commonly assist litigants in person with procedural matters, Mr Simmons had not shown that he sought such assistance or other available sources of help.

5. The delay was gross, the explanation was unsatisfactory, and no good excuse or other compelling reason justified the exceptional course of extending time. There was no realistic prospect of success on the proposed appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal refused; the ancillary disclosure and production application fell with it.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Lindsay J dismissed Mr Simmons’s appeal from the EAT Registrar’s refusal to extend time.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal Registrar: refused an extension of time for appealing the employment tribunal’s decision.
• Employment Tribunal, Sheffield: dismissed the complaint of victimisation under section 4 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.